Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh v. Smt. Parwati Bai W
Case Details
1 KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2025:CGHC:25085 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 291 of 2018 Santosh Kevant S/o S/o Ramlal Kevant Aged About 38 Years R/o P.W.I. South East Railway, Occupation Khalasi, P.S. Tarbahar Tahsil, And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh Present Address Near Jhopdapara Talab, Rent In Patwari House, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus
Legal Reasoning
Smt. Parwati Bai W/o W/o Santosh Kevant Aged About 38 Years R/o Gaing Kholi, Behind Q. No. 184 (Jhopdi) Police Station Tarbahar, Tahsil, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Rajendra Kumar Patel, Advocate. For Non-applicant : None Hon'ble Shri , Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha Order on Board 17.06.2025 1. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayers: “It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be allow this revision and to set-aside/quashed the impugned order dated 6.6.2014, passed by the Family Court Bilaspur in 2 Misc. criminal case No. 774/2013 arising out of the order dated 13.01.2010 passed by the Family Court Bilaspur in Misc. criminal case no. 264/2009, in the interest of justice..” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/wife stated that, as per Hindu customs and rituals, her marriage with the applicant/husband was solemnized in Bilaspur on 12.03.1991. During their married life, she gave birth to a son on 06.11.1992. In a maintenance case filed against the applicant/husband, an order passed in her favor was later set aside by the Court of the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge on 04.02.2004, on the grounds that she was living separately from her husband without sufÏcient cause. However, the order granting Rs. 300/- per month as maintenance for the son remained intact. She resided at her husband’s house for two months. After that period and following the above-mentioned order, she was forced to leave her matrimonial home due to quarrels and being thrown out by her husband and sister-in-law, despite her mother’s attempts at reconciliation. She is currently living at her maternal home. In the meantime, the applicant/husband solemnized a second marriage with a woman named “Madhu alias Poonam,” a resident of Sakri, at the Gayatri Temple in Sakri on 27.03.2007, without obtaining a divorce from the non-applicant/wife. A criminal complaint regarding this second marriage is pending before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur. 3. At present, the non-applicant/wife is unable to sustain herself. She is living with her son, who is studying in 11th grade and her mother. 3 The applicant/husband, employed as a “Khalasi” (trackman/helper) in South East Central Railway, earns a monthly salary of Rs. 12,000/-. Given the circumstances, the non-applicant has requested that a suitable amount of maintenance be granted. In support of her application, the non-applicant has submitted only her own testimony. From the examination of the 29-year-old non- applicant Parvati’s evidence, it is revealed that she was married to the applicant on 12.03.1991. During their married life, she gave birth to a son on 06.11.1992. It is also evident from the non- applicant’s testimony that in the year 2007, the applicant married with “Madhu alias Poonam,” a resident of village Hanfa, at the Gayatri Temple in Sakri, and has been living with her since then. 4. The non-applicant has provided clear evidence against the applicant that during her stay at her maternal home, her husband, despite being employed as a “Khalasi” in the Railways, did not provide her with any financial support. She stated that she earns Rs. 1,000/- per month by washing utensils in 2–3 households, which is insufÏcient for her livelihood. She has requested that her husband, who earns Rs. 12,000–15,000/- per month, be directed to pay her at least Rs. 3,000/- per month as maintenance. 5. After appreciating the evidence and material available on record, the learned Family Court has passed the order on 13.01.2010 and it is directed that the applicant/husband to pay sum of Rs. 2000/- per month in favour of the respondent/wife. Thereafter, in the year 2013 the respondent/ wife namely Smt. Parwati Bai filed an application 4 under section 127 of Cr.P.C. for enhancement of the maintenance amount up to Rs. 8000/-. The respondent/wife stated that at present the applicant/ husband working in the department of the railway from where, he earn Rs. 20,200/- per month therefore he demanded Rs. 8000/- for maintenance. 6. Thereafter, after appreciating the evidence and material available on record, the learned Family Court has passed the order dated 06.06.2014 wherein enhanced the maintenance of Rs. 2000/- to 3000/- per month in favour of respondent/wife. Hence this revision. 7. 8. 9. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned judgment order dated 06.06.2014 is bad in law, perverse, erroneous, therefore liable to be set-aside. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the trial Court. Initially an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent/ wife before the learned Family Court, Bilaspur for grant of maintenance of Rs. 5000/- as the same application was partly allowed and the applicant/husband was directed to pay Rs. 2000/- to the respondent/wife for maintenance. Thereafter, the respondent/wife again preferred an application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court concerned for enhancement of maintenance and again her application was partly allowed and the learned Family Court concerned was enhanced Rs. 2000/- to Rs. 3000/- as maintenance per month in favour of respondent/wife. 10. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned 5 Family Court concerned had directed the applicant/husband to pay Rs.3000/- per month to the non-applicant/wife as maintenance which cannot be said to be on higher side, considering the price index and living standard and further observing that the applicant/husband receives a monthly salary of Rs. 12,555/- after necessary deductions. There has been increase in the applicant’s salary as well as a significant rise in the cost of living. Consequently, it is found that there has been a substantial change in the circumstances of the parties. The applicant/husband has remained ex parte. There is no basis to disbelieve the non-applicant’s unilateral evidence. 11. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and also considering the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court concerned. 12. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 13. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action. Kunal Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice